You are on page 1of 49

Technical Paper by N. Kotake, F. Tatsuoka, T.

Tanaka,
M.S.A. Siddiquee, and C.C. Huang
FEM SIMULATION OF THE BEARING CAPACITY OF
LEVEL REINFORCED SAND GROUND SUBJECTED TO
FOOTING LOAD
ABSTRACT: To obtain a better understanding of the bearing capacity characteristics
of reinforced sand subjected to a footing load and the associated reinforcing mechanisms,
results from plane strain laboratory model tests were simulated using a nonlinear elasto-
plastic finite element model (FEM). The following factors, which affect the strength and
deformation of sand, were considered in the simulations: (i) confining pressure; (ii)
anisotropy; (iii) nonlinear strain-hardening and strain-softening; (iv) dilatancy; and (v)
strain localization into a shear band(s) having a width proportional to the particle size.
Simulated load-settlement relationships were generally in good agreement with the phys-
ical experimental results. The strain and stress fields obtained from the FEM analysis
clearly reveal that the ground failure is extremely progressive. The peak strength is never
mobilized simultaneously along the potential failure planes.
KEYWORDS: Bearing capacity, Finite element method, Shear band, Stress path.
AUTHORS: N. Kotake, Engineer, Toyo Construction Co. Ltd., Japan, 3-7-1
Kandanishiki-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-8463 Japan, Telephone: 81/3-3296-4623,
Telefax: 81/3-3296-4633, E-mail: kotake-nozomu@toyo-const.co.jp; F. Tatsuoka, Prof.,
Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-
8656, Japan, Telephone: 81/3-5841-6120, Telefax: 81/3-5841-8504, E-mail:
tatsuoka@geot.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp; T. Tanaka, Prof., Dept. of Biological & Environmental
Engineering, University of Tokyo, Japan, Yayoi 1-1-1, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8657,
Japan, Telephone: 81/3-5841-5346, Telefax: 81/3-5841-8170, E-mail:
atanak@mail.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp; M.S.A. Siddiquee, Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Bangladesh,
Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh, E-mail: sid@bangla.net; and C.-C. Huang, Prof., Dept. of
Civil Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, No.1, Ta-Hsueh Road, Tainan,
Taiwan, 70101 ROC, E-mail: samhcc@mail.ncku.edu.tw.
PUBLICATION: Geosynthetics International is published by the Industrial Fabrics
Association International, 1801 County Road B West, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-
4061, USA, Telephone: 1/612-222-2508, Telefax: 1/612-631-9334. Geosynthetics
International is registered under ISSN 1072-6349.
DATE: Original manuscript submitted 10 November 2001, revised version received 14
December 2001, and accepted 5 January 2002. Discussion open until 1 September 2002.
REFERENCE: Kotake, N., Tatsuoka, F., Tanaka, T., Siddiquee, M.S.A., and Huang,
C.C., 2001, “FEM Simulation of the Bearing Capacity of Level Reinforced Sand Ground
Subjected to Footing Load”, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 501-549.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6 501

KOTAKE et al. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load

1 INTRODUCTION

Previous studies into the soil reinforcing technology have proven that it is very effective
to place horizontal tensile reinforcement layers of, for example, a polymer geogrid in
the ground immediately below a footing to improve the bearing capacity of the ground,
in particular of dense sand ground. This type of soil-reinforcing technology could be
used in practice as a cost-effective solution when compared to the conventional solution,
e.g., using a footing with a relevant embedment. Many experimental studies have been
conducted over the last two decades to clarify the reinforcing mechanism to predict the
ultimate bearing capacity of reinforced ground and to optimise the arrangement of rein-
forcement elements beneath the footing (Binquent and Lee 1975; Fragaszy and Lawton
1984; Guido et al. 1986; Akinmusuur and Akinbolade 1981; Huang and Tatsuoka 1988,
1990; Takemura et al. 1992; Ju et al. 1996). In these experimental studies, metal strips,
geotextile, and geogrids were used as tensile reinforcement.
Huang and Tatsuoka (1988, 1990) performed a series of well-controlled model lab-
oratory tests under plane strain conditions to evaluate the bearing capacity of rein-
forced soil (Figure 1). As shown in Figure 2, Huang and Tatsuoka (1988, 1990)
evaluated the effects of the following reinforcement factors on the bearing capacity of
ground loaded with a strip footing: (i) length; (ii) number of layers (or depth of rein-
forced zone); (iii) horizontal spacing (or cover ratio); and (iv) stiffness and rupture
strength. A series of reference tests was also conducted using a surface footing and a
footing with different depths on and in unreinforced sand. The details of the experi-
mental procedures are described in Section 2. Huang and Tatsuoka (1988, 1990) iden-
tified the following two reinforcing mechanisms that increase the bearing capacity of
level sand ground subjected to a footing load:
• Deep footing mechanism: By placing horizontal tensile reinforcement layers hav-
ing an appropriate vertical spacing between the adjacent reinforcement layers a
reinforced zone is formed immediately below the footing, which behaves as a
semi-rigid block by restraining the lateral deformation of the sand in the reinforced
zone. When the compressive strength of the semi-rigid block is larger than the
bearing capacity of the underlying unreinforced deposit, the latter controls the peak
footing load. Even when the reinforcement length is equal to the footing width, the
peak footing load can become approximately equivalent to that of a deep rigid foot-
ing having the same width.
• Wide slab mechanism (Schlosser and Elias 1978): When the reinforcement layers
are longer than the footing width, this mechanism becomes important, in addition
to “the deep footing mechanism”. That is, the reinforced zone behaves as a stiff,
but not perfectly rigid, reinforced block extending laterally beyond the width of
footing, spreading the footing load into a wider area below the reinforced zone than
it is when the reinforcement length is as short as the footing width.
Huang and Menq (1997) and Huang and Hong (2000) analysed their model tests
results and all other available test results and found that the bearing capacity of rein-

502 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6

KOTAKE et al. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load

Figure 1. Setup of the laboratory model tests (after Huang and Tatsuoka 1990).

Figure 2. Schematic of the different groups of laboratory model tests performed in the
present study (after Huang and Tatsuoka 1990).

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6 503

KOTAKE et al. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load

forced ground subjected to footing load, as described above, could be predicted based
on these two reinforcing mechanisms.
The bearing capacity of unreinforced ground subjected to footing load is one of the
most important classical geotechnical engineering problems. A great number of
researches have been performed into this issue by means of theoretical, experimental
and numerical approaches. It has been found, however, that it is not possible to accu-
rately evaluate by the classical approach the bearing capacity factor for soil weight Nγ
for a strip footing placed on or in sand and it is in particular the case with dense sand
having a high friction angle. Tatsuoka et al. (1991) and Siddiquee et al. (1999), for
example, showed that the classical bearing capacity theory over-simplifies the defor-
mation and strength characteristics of sand into an isotropic perfectly plastic one with
zero failure plane thickness, which results into the unreliable prediction of Nγ associ-
ated with an unrealistic failure mechanism not exhibiting progressive failure (in the
sense that the peak strength of sand is not mobilized simultaneously along the potential
failure planes or shear bands). A reasonable prediction of the bearing capacity of
ground subjected to footing load by the classical theory is possible only when a reason-
able average operating strength of soil can be chosen, which is however usually not an
objective process. Huang and Tatsuoka (1990), Huang et al. (1994) and Huang and
Tatsuoka (1994) showed that the effects of progressive failure on the bearing capacity
of level ground and slope of sand become more important when sand is reinforced than
when sand is not unreinforced, and the failure becomes more progressive as the rein-
forcing effects become larger. Despite that several FEM solutions for Nγ can be found
in the literature, most of them also assume isotropic perfectly plastic material property
of sand. On the other hand, a recent numerical study revealed that the bearing capacity
characteristics of level dense sand subjected to footing load observed in physical
model tests could be reasonably simulated by FEM only when based on an appropriate
and realistic constitutive model of the deformation and strength characteristics of sand
(Tatsuoka et al. 1991; Siddiquee et al. 1999, 2000). In their works, a number of factors
that affect the strength and deformation of sand were taken into account, including; a)
confining pressure; b) anisotropy; c) nonlinear strain-hardening and strain-softening;
d) dilatancy; and e) strain localization into a shear band(s) having a thickness propor-
tional to the sand particle size. For a realistic numerical simulation of the deformation
and failure of a reinforced soil mass, the relevant modelling of the interaction between
reinforcement and the surrounding soil is also essential in addition to the above. It has
also been shown that discrete reinforcement layers having locally a three-dimensional
structure, such as geogrid layers, can be adequately modelled into planar reinforce-
ment layers having an equivalent angle of friction at the interface between the sand and
the reinforcement, which is equal to or smaller than the angle of internal friction of
sand (Kotake et al. 1997; Kotake 1998; Kotake et al. 1999; Peng et al. 2000). They
showed that by using this modelling procedure, the two-dimensional FEM can simu-
late rather accurately the global stress-strain relations of dense Toyoura sand speci-
mens reinforced with single- and multi-layers of geogrid observed in physical plane
strain compression (PSC) tests. The shear band patterns in the reinforced PSC speci-
mens were also well simulated in the FEM analysis.
The objective of the present paper is, therefore, to show that the FEM procedure

504 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6

A rigid 100 mm-wide and 398 mm-long footing with a rough base. The sidewalls of the sand box consisted of 30 mm-thick transparent Acrylic plates with outside steel stiffeners to ensure the plane strain conditions. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load based on the realistic constitutive models of sand and sand-reinforcement interaction that have been developed by the authors can also simulate accurately the global footing load-settlement relationships of reinforced level ground. Local normal and shear stresses were measured by means of five two- component load cells equipped at the central third of the footing base. D50 = 0. 2 MODEL TESTS ON REINFORCED SAND (HUANG AND TATSUOKA 1990) The models for physical experiments (Figures 1 and 2) were prepared by pluviating air-dried Toyoura sand through air at a controlled fall height into a rigid sand box from a slit of a hopper moving laterally at a controlled constant velocity. The reinforcing mechanism is also analysed based on the strain and stress fields obtained from the FEM analysis. the effects of reinforcement arrangement on the increase in the bearing capacity of ground subject to footing and the failure pattern with shear band development in unreinforced and reinforced zones that were observed in the above-mentioned model tests (Huang and Tatsuoka 1988.40 m in length. 1990). is approximately 0.83 m in width. As effects of the rigidity of reinforcement on the bearing capacity characteristics of footing were found insignificant in these model tests (Huang and Tatsuoka 1990).74 m in depth. The measurement was rather accurate as phosphor bronze is highly linear elastic. The inside surface of the Acrylic plate was well lubricated by means of a 0. The minimum and max- imum void ratios are 0. having a specific gravity.2 mm-thick latex rubber membrane sheet in con- tact with sand smeared with a 0.16 mm. 8. 6 505 . which was guided against tilting and translation by using a high precision linear-motion ball bear- ing bushing.05°. was loaded at a controlled constant displacement rate between 0. Tensile force activated in the reinforcement was measured by means of electronic-resistant strain gauges.5 mm-thick and 3 mm-wide.46 having no fines content.1 and 0. The model sand ground had dimensions of 1. noting that it is very difficult to evaluate the stress fields in a sand mass by physical experiments. homogeneous dense model grounds having similar relative densities (in a range of Dr = 80 to 86%) were obtained. The friction angle of the lubrication layers at the pressure lev- els in the zone beneath the footing that are relevant to the model tests. The surface of the strips was made rough by gluing the particles of Toyoura sand. a mean grain diameter. Strips made of phosphor bronze.605 and 0.5 mm-thick silicone grease layer placed between the membrane and the plate.64. NO. KOTAKE et al. estimated based on the results from the direct shear tests on the lubrication layer (Tatsuoka et al. Toyoura sand is a sub-angular to angular quartz-rich sieved sand. and 0. 0. 0. Gs = 2. By this method. VOL.977. 1984). were used as model reinforcement. each of which could measure the normal and shear forces separately. respectively. and a coefficient of uniformity.2 mm/minute. Cu = 1. it is likely that the effects of the arrangements of rein- forcement layers and the failure mechanism of reinforced ground that were observed in GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001.

only a half domain of the model ground was analysed. 3. From strain fields on the σ2 plane obtained as described above.e. the development of shear band pattern could be traced. 3. 10 mm2 mesh had been drawn. were selected for the FEM simulation: 1. 2.5. and 1.2 FEM Modelling The meshing shown in Figure 3 was used in the present FEM analysis.9. L/B = 2 for the first top layer and L/B = 3. L/ B = 1) is highly effective for improving the bearing capacity of ground subjected to footing load. 2. KOTAKE et al.5 for the second and third layers. NO. Average strains in each 10 mm × 10 mm element were obtained from displace- ments at four nodes of the element. 8.5) on the bearing capacity of ground were also investigated. as shown later in Section 5. Effects of the number of reinforcement layers n (= 1. The total number of plane elements and the nodal points are 540 and 581.e. 0. Displacement fields on the intermediate principal stress.6. i. It had been confirmed that the displacements mea- sured as described above were nearly the same as those at the central section of the model sand ground.. which is equivalent to a normal strain of about 1.5. This mesh size was considered to be adequate based on the results of a parametric study on the effects of mesh size in the numerical simulation by using the present FEM code of 506 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. which were essentially free from the effects of side wall friction (Tani 1986). 2. assuming a linear variation in strain in the element. The ground was discretized into four-noded quadrilateral plane ele- ments. using short and long reinforcement layers. VOL. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load these model tests are also representative of those for sand ground reinforced with a rel- atively stiff polymer geogrid. Taking advan- tage of the symmetric nature of the problem. the length of rein- forcement layer was not uniform. On the outer surface of membrane used to lubricate the sidewalls of the sand box. The accuracy of the displacement measurement was estimated to be about 0. 3. plane of the model ground were obtained from displacements at the nodal points of the mesh that were read from photographs taken occasionally during each test. 0. and 6) when the number of rein- forcement layers n was equal to 3. Group-b: This group of model tests was performed to study into the effects of the length of reinforcement layers L (L/B = 1. 6 .0%.1 Analysed Model Tests Among those described in Figure 2. Only in the case of L/B = 3. Group-a: This group of model tests was performed to study into whether the use of short reinforcement layers having a length L equal to the footing width B (i.. σ2 . 3 FEM SIMULATION PROCECURE 3. respectively. and 5) or the depth of reinforced zone DR /B (= 0.012 mm.3. the following two groups of model tests. The vicinity of the footing was discretized into 10 mm × 10 mm square elements to capture the deformation and failure modes in these critical zones.

as the sand was in contact with an untreated but nearly flat steel surface in the model tests. vertical rollers were placed along the footing centreline. i. KOTAKE et al. VOL. 1999). 6 507 . GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. plane strain compression tests (Kotake et al. To minimise possible effects of mesh-dependency on the results among different analysis cases. NO. Finite element mesh used in the present study. This small effect of boundary condition is due seemingly to that the distance between the footing base and the bottom and lateral boundaries is sufficiently large.. As for the boundaries of the ground. respectively. the axis of symmetry. both using Toyoura sand. which was different from the actual boundary conditions in the physical model tests. the same mesh shown in Figure 3 was used throughout the present analysis.e. Horizontal and vertical rollers were placed along the bottom and other lateral boundaries of the analysis domain. 1999) and bearing capacity model tests (Siddiquee et al. It was confirmed that the bearing capacity of ground obtained by this FEM analysis using this roller boundaries becomes only slightly smaller than the value when using fixed boundaries (Kotake 1998). • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load Figure 3. This boundary condition was considered much more representative of the one in the model tests than fixed boundaries. 8.

(5) 9 + 12 tan2 ψ where ψ is the mobilized angle of dilatancy. 1993.3 Constitutive Model for Sand As the details of the sand constitutive model have been reported in several previous papers by the authors of the current paper (Tatsuoka et al. which is positive in compression). which is equal to zero in the present analysis.e. respectively. which is defined as: 3 – sin φ mob g ( θ ) = ---------------------------------------------------------------. φmob . A generalized elasto-plastic analysis with a non-associated flow rule was performed using an isotropic strain-hardening-softening model.. This potential function has a similar form to the yield function. 8.J 2 – K (1) g(θ) where: I1 = first invariant of stress (i. deviatoric stress). Kotake et al.0. 1999. Peng et al. as: 2 sin φ mob η = ----------------------------------------. only a brief outline is given below. NO. and g(θ) = Lode angle func- tion. which is related to the mobilized angle of internal fric- tion. when g(θ) = 1. J2 = second stress invariant (i. K = cohesion intercept. Equation 1..e. The yield function and the plastic potential were of Mohr-Coulomb and Drucker-Prager types. 6 . 2000). Siddiquee et al. (3) 3 ( 3 – sin φ mob ) The plastic potential function is defined as: Ψ = – α ′I 1 + J 2 – K′ = 0 (4) where K′ is the cohesion intercept. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load 3. α′ is defined as: tan ψ α ′ = ---------------------------------. The coefficient α′ is defined depending on the type of analysis. 1995. The yield function is expressed as: 1 Φ = – η I 1 + ----------. For the present plane strain conditions. (2) 2 3 cos θ – 2 sin θ sin φ mob where η is the deviatoric stress at θ = 30° (on the π-plane) and the growth function (or the strain-hardening function). which is given by:  d ε 1p + d ε 3p ψ = arc sin  – ----------------------- - (6)  d ε 1p – d ε 3p 508 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. VOL. 2000. hydrostatic stress component. KOTAKE et al. General Framework. 1999. Equation 4 has the advantage of differentiability at all stress states. which is equal to zero in the present study.

1999).5 – e ) }R ( δ ) (9b) where (σ3)o is given by: ( σ3 ) = 4 ( 1 – e ) pa ( p a = 98 kPa ) (10) The anisotropy function R(δ) is the average curve for dense Toyoura sand (Figure 4). (1993) to fit the PSC data reported by Tatsuoka et al. In the present study. The GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. the critical value. The peak angle of friction.47 ( 1. According to Equation 8. Toyoura sand) in PSC reported by Tatsuoka et al.. 1999).98  59. A coefficient of 0. for Toyoura sand (Siddiquee et al. φpeak . which is introduced in Equation 9. When the confining pressure σ3 is higher than. which was obtained by modifying the Rowe's original relation (Rowe 1962) to sim- ulate. 6 509 .e. Growth Function and Peak Strength. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load where d ε 1p and d ε 3p are the major and minor plastic principal strain increments (posi- tive in compression). or equal to. (σ3)o :   σ3   φ peak ( degrees ) = 0. The model considers the pressure-level dependency of the internal friction angle φpeak and the elastic shear modulus and the inherent anisotropy in the strength and deformation properties with regard to the angle δ of the direction of σ1 relative to the bedding plane.5 – e ) – 10 ( 1 – e ) log10  ------------. (1986) and Park and Tatsuoka (1994) were modelled into the generalized hyperbolic equation. KOTAKE et al. equal to − d ε 1p / d ε 3p . 1999). the value of ψ was determined by Equation 7. which is linked to the resid- ual angle of friction φres . The general hyperbolic equation (Equation A1) was used as the growth function for the yield surface defined in Equa- tion 1. R ( δ ) (9a)   ( σ3 )0   and when σ3 is lower than (σ3)o : φ peak ( degrees ) = 0. as: φ res ( in degrees ) = 35. which has been found to be a function of the confining pres- sure. (1999) and Kotake et al. the values of Rres and φres decrease with an increase in the confining pressure. the results from the physical PSC tests on Toyoura sand (Park and Tatsuoka 1994): R = ( R res – 1 ) ⋅ D + 1 (7) where: R = principal stress ratio.00 ⋅ log ( σ 3 ⁄ p a ) (8) where pa = 98 kPa. σ3 . which is summarized in Appendix A (Tatsuoka et al. The pre-peak stress-strain relationships of the test material (i. (σ1 / σ3).67 – 3. as closely as possible. The growth functions for typical cases are depicted in Siddiquee et al. and D = principal plastic strain ratio. (1999). was not originally used by Tatsuoka et al.98. NO. Rres is the value of R at the residual state. 8. of Toyoura sand that is modelled below was used in the present analysis. 1993).98 { 59. VOL. Similar results have been obtained for other types of sands (Siddiquee et al.47 ( 1. (1986) and it was not used for the FEM simulation of the model plane strain bearing capacity tests of a strip footing on Toyoura sand performed by Tani (1986) (Siddiquee et al.

Yasin et al. VOL. and 2. Dependency of φpeak on the angle of the σ1 direction relative to the bedding plane of Toyoura sand in PSC (Tatsuoka et al. this slight adjustment has no important effects on the conclu- sions obtained in the present study. However. 1990). NO. In the present analysis. until the computed δ value converges to the respective assumed value from which the deformation and strength characteristics at each point was obtained in the computation step immediately before. In the present FEM analysis. Strain localization into a shear band starts suddenly at the peak stress state.98 is as follows. 1990) was generally slightly smaller than those from the test series conducted by Tani (1986) under the similar conditions. (1999) showed that the strength and deformation characteristics of different batches Toyoura sand could be quite different in plane strain compression tests at low confining pressures. reason for the introduction of a coefficient of 0. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load Figure 4. 1986). Therefore. The bearing capacity factor Nγ obtained from a series of bearing capacity tests on unreinforced Toyoura sand conducted by Huang and Tatsuoka (1988. 8. It was considered that this variance was due primarily to the different batches of Toyoura sand used in these two series of model tests. 6 . In the present analysis. The deformation of a given sand mass under a uniform boundary stress condition be homogeneous in the pre-peak regime. the original peak friction angle φpeak was reduced by 2% so that the Nγ value for the unreinforced Toyoura sand ground obtained by the present FEM simulation became the same as the value measured by Huang and Tatsuoka (1988. while 510 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. therefore. it is assumed that: 1. the isotropy of the yielding property (Equation 1) in the constitutive model has no direct consequence in the analysis results for the present analysis of globally monotonic loading cases. δ. KOTAKE et al. Modelling of Shear Banding. the anisotropic material property is taken into account at each step of computation by continuously and repeatedly redefining the deformation and strength characteristics as a function of the angle.

Yoshida et al. KOTAKE et al. (1999)). These assumptions are a reasonable approximation of experimental results from an extensive series of PSC tests (Tatsuoka et al. with the direction of maximum shear strain. an approximated form of S used in the present study can be expressed as: w S = ---------. εr . w. The value of the strain softening parameter. independent of boundary conditions. NO. (12) Fe To model the post-peak. Yoshida et al. unlike the Pietruszcak and Mroz (1981) method. 1990. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load the peak strength is a material property.g.. (1994) and Yoshida and Tatsuoka (1997). 6 511 . which is equal to 0. (1999). (13) εr where: R = σ1 / σ3 . The elastic deformation properties of Toy- oura sand are summarised in Appendix B. and Kotake et al. and γf = shear strain when R = Rpeak . The plastic strain component d ε ije is determined by the yield function (Equation 1) and the plastic potential (Equation 6). Based on these assumptions. Then. γ = total shear strain (= ε1 − ε3) inside a shear band. (1994) and Yoshida and Tatsuoka (1997)). 8. (1999) introduced a shear banding phenomenon in their FEM analysis by using a strain localization parameter. The parameter S is the area ratio equal to Fb / Fe . Rather. was determined from exponential fitting of the experimental results obtained by Yoshida et al. By ignoring the effects of the orientation of the shear band in each finite ele- ment. As the shear band width w is basically proportional to the particle size (e. is similar to the method proposed by Pietruszcak and Mroz (1981). Siddiquee et al. (1991). stress-strain properties of sand inside each shear band. 1994. Rres = residual stress ratio (Equation 8). in the additive decomposition of the total strain increment as follows (Tanaka and Sakai 1993): d ε ij = d ε ije + Sd ε ijp (11) where d ε ije is the elastic strain increment. the rate of post-peak strain softening associated with shear banding depends on the strain localization parameter S. in a broad sense.513 for a Toyoura sand shear band thickness of 3 mm. taking into account strain localization associated with shear banding by introducing a characteristic width of shear band and by defining specific and objec- tive shear deformation and dilatancy characteristics inside shear bands. Siddiquee et al. Yoshida and Tatsuoka 1997). it is implicitly assumed that the direction of the shear band coin- cides.. Rpeak = (σ1 / σ3)peak = (1 + sin φpeak)/(1 − sin φpeak). VOL. the direction of shear banding was not specified in the present study. where Fb is the area of a single shear band in each finite element and Fe is the area of the finite element. GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. φpeak = peak angle of friction (Equation 9). which is solely a function of the shear band width. the effects of sand particle size on the failure strength of a sand mass can be simulated by the present FEM procedure (e. the following strain-softening stress-strain relationship was introduced: ( γ – γf )2 R = R res + ( R peak – R res ) exp – -------------------. Tatsuoka et al.g. S. However. This method.

1999). Kotake et al. NO. the original 400 mm-wide reinforcement layer consisted of 24 strips placed in a sand box.05% of the actual material stiffness) was added to the nonlinear system. each phosphor bronze strip layer was modelled as a planar reinforcing layer by using beam elements in the present plane strain FEM analysis. with a cover ratio CR = 18%. In the present FEM analysis. Therefore. A = 9. geosynthetic strips.4 Modelling of Reinforcement A soil mass reinforced with metal. On the other hand. no particular interface elements were used. as hourglass resisting nodal forces. which cannot be modelled directly in a two- dimensional (2-D) plane strain numerical analysis. the beam element had a cross-sectional area.875 × 10-6 cm4 per unit length in the ε2 direction. the friction angle at the sand-reinforcement interface was eventually equal to the friction angle of the sand in the adjacent zone. 3. A set of nonlinear equations was solved using the dynamic relaxation tech- nique (Tanaka and Kawamoto 1988). which has a reputation for solving highly nonlin- ear equations. The numerical procedure described above has been used to simulate the failure of 512 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. Thus.0 × 10-3 cm2 and a moment of inertia. which is used in the present study. Note that the φSS value is a function of the direc- tion of the major principal stress relative to the direction of the interface while affected by the normal strain condition in the longitudinal direction of the interface. an anti-hour- glass scheme. 6 . when- ever any sand element started to form an hourglass mode. which will be reported elsewhere by the present authors. which is the same with the respective mobilised peak value of φSS = arctan(τ / σn)max along the interface. The integration of the elasto-plastic equations was performed by the return-mapping scheme (Ortiz and Simo 1986). 1971) were used to improve the bounds of the solution in pseudo-equilibrium for this highly non- linear material (Toyoura sand). VOL. was adopted. The details are described by Siddiquee et al. or a geogrid has a three-dimen- sional (3-D) structure at a local scale. 8. The values of axial and bending stiffness of each planar member were set equal to the respective average value of the original reinforcement layer consisting of strips. To this end. like the present FEM analysis. To prevent any probable hourglass mode. proposed by Flanagan and Belytschko (1981). especially for high friction angle materials such as dense Toyoura sand. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load 3. KOTAKE et al.22 × 108 kN/m2 of the phosphor bronze strips evaluated by the stress-strain test was used. Four-noded quadrilateral elements along with reduced integration (Zienkiewicz et al. thus. a very small elastic stiffness (0.5 Numerical Procedure General. (1995). some attempts were made to take into account the effects of possible slip- page and imperfect friction conditions along the interface by introducing special inter- face elements (Kotake 1998. I = 1. A FEM code with an optimised dynamic relaxation solver developed by Tanaka and Kawamoto (1988) was used. since no pronounced slippage between sand and reinforcement and pullout failure of reinforce- ment was observed in the physical experimental tests. In the present case. the linear elastic property with a Young’s modulus equal to 1. Following an elastic stiffness approach. which is a first order approximated Euler backward integration.

Uniform vertical displacements were prescribed to the nodal points of the sand ground model. The unit weight of sand γd = 15.66. On the other hand. the initial stress state in the model sand ground was analysed by applying gravity to the model ground. 1999.66.34 was used. (1991) and Siddiquee et al. which gives the initial void ratio eo= 0. which is taken at a Gauss point of each concerned plane element in the present FEM analysis. It was found that a tighter tolerance than the above required more iterations with a very small GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. 1991. A Ko value of 0.58 kN/m3. KOTAKE et al. of the model ground into the following empirical equation: K o = 0.52 e o (15) Equation 15 was obtained by means of special triaxial compression tests using a double-cell triaxial apparatus containing a specimen of air-pluviated Toyoura sand (Okochi and Tatsuoka 1984). which was contact with the footing base while lateral move- ments of those nodal points were fixed to model the rough base footing condition. was used as the average value of the measured values ranging from 15. The initial stress state obtained by such a FEM gravitational force analysis as above was in a good agreement with Equation 15. which was obtained by substituting the average initial void ratio.e. eo = 0.. Initial Stress Condition and Loading Method in the Simulation. Tatsuoka et al. allowing one-dimensional (1-D) compression by the self-weight of the sand to take place in the sand mass. respectively. a central and vertical load was applied to a rigid footing with a rough base under dis- placement control. which had been found to be small enough to keep enough accuracy and numerical stability even for the most densely and widely reinforced ground in the present study. 8. Simulation of Loading Procedure. Also. 1999. and h = depth. 2000) obtained a satisfactory agree- ment of global stress-strain behaviour (in the PSC tests) and load-deformation or foot- ing settlement relations (in the model footing tests) between the numerical simulation and the physical experiments. The previous achievements described above are the basis for the present study on the bearing failure characteristics of reinforced sand. is represented as: ( σv )o = γd h ( σh )o = Ko ( σv )o (14) where: (σv)o and (σh)o = initial vertical and horizontal stresses. vali- dating the present analysis method (Kotake 1998). called the Ko-stress condition. 6 513 . NO. In the same way as the physical model tests. The displacement rate in the analysis was 0. The initial stress state of homogeneous level ground. 0. 2000).65 kN/m3 in the physical experiments. i. VOL. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load unreinforced and reinforced sand specimens in plane strain compression tests (Kotake et al. 2000) and in the bearing capacity failure tests using a strip footing on unreinforced sand (Tatsuoka et al.01 mm/step. Siddiquee et al. the development of a shear band in unreinforced and reinforced sand masses was reasonably simulated. Peng et al.40 to 15. A force norm and an energy norm of 1 × 10-6 were specified for an equi- librium iteration tolerance in the calculation of a dynamic relaxation scheme. (1999.01%/step of the footing width B. 1997.

the post-peak footing load behav- 514 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. 8. Figures 7 and 8 summarize the effects of the number of reinforcement layers. More details of the convergence check are described by Siddiquee et al. (1995). the average footing pressure. from the physical experiments and the FEM analysis. Table 1 shows the analysis cases and the various assumptions used in the analy- sis. It should be noted that unrealistic results could be obtained by numerical analyses based on a constitutive model of sand that does not take into account the relevant factors (i. Factors (i) to (iv) listed in Section 1). i. NO. In the FEM analyses. 6 .. 1999). It is also true. while a looser tolerance caused an unacceptable fluctua- tion when overestimating the bearing capacity of ground subjected to a footing load. the N = 2q/ (γd B) and S/B relationships) obtained from the physical experiments on the unrein- forced and reinforced ground models (Groups A and B in Figure 2) and the corre- sponding FEM analyses. Sf /B.. the depth of reinforced zone DR /B) and the effects of reinforcement length. central and vertical loading on a rigid and rough footing under plane strain conditions on Toyoura sand with a void ratio equal to 0. When referring to the results presented in Figure 9. L. however. Figure 9 shows the results from a parametric study into the effects of these parameters on the bearing capacity of level ground loaded with a 500 mm-wide strip footing under otherwise the same conditions as in the present case (i.66) (Siddiquee et al. q. n (i. (2000). 4 LOAD-SETTLEMENT RELATIONS 4.. it could be understood that a discrepancy between the FEM analysis and the physical experiment for the unrein- forced model ground (Figure 5) is insignificant. VOL. was obtained by simply averaging the vertical stresses at the Gauss points in the soil ele- ments immediately beneath the footing base. on the maximum value of the normalized peak footing load N.e.1 General Figures 5 and 6 show the normalized load-settlement relationships (i. and the relative settlement at peak footing load. the pre-peak load-displacement relationship and the peak footing load obtained from the FEM anal- ysis is in a good agreement with the result from the physical experimental results.500 displacement incremental steps until the normalized footing settlement S/B became 0.e.2 Unreinforced Ground It may be seen from Figure 5 that for the unreinforced model ground.e. 4. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load improvement of the solution. The vertical displacement prescribed as the settlement at the footing base was defined as the footing settlement S. In addition. Nγ .15. that the FEM results exhibit a noticeably larger pre-peak stiffness and smaller settlement at the peak footing load state when compared to those from the physical experiment.. All the analyses were carried out using 1. which is enough for the purpose of the present study.e. Kotake (1998). KOTAKE et al.. a simulation that well exceeds the maximum footing load state. This discrepancy becomes larger as the reinforcing effects become larger as shown below. and Peng et al.e.

04 0.06 0.00 0.12 0. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load 400 Group-a: L/B=1 300 FEM n=0 n=1 N (=2q / γd B) n=2 n=3 200 n=5 TEST n=0 n=1 100 n=2 n=3 n=5 0 0.00 0.20 S/B Figure 5. 500 Group-b: n=3 400 FEM L/B=0 L/B=1 300 N (=2q / γd B) L/B=2 L/B=3. 8.16 0.10 0. 6 515 .06 0.12 0. Normalized load-settlement relations for Group A obtained from experimental tests and FEM analysis. KOTAKE et al. GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. NO.14 0.10 0.18 0.08 0.14 0.04 0.02 0. Normalized load-settlement relationships for Group B obtained from experimental tests and FEM analyses.5 100 L/B=6 0 0.02 0.5 L/B=6 200 TEST L/B=0 L/B=1 L/B=2 L/B=3.18 0. VOL.08 0.20 S/B Figure 6.16 0.

04 0. KOTAKE et al.01 0.12 0. 516 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. VOL.07 0.8 DR / B (b) 0.0 0.10 0.6 1.09 0.15 0.9 1. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load (a) 350 Group-a: L/B=1 300 Nγ (=2q / γd B) 250 200 150 100 FEM 50 Test 0 0.14 0.0 0.3 0. Group A physical experimental results and FEM analysis results: (a) effect of number of reinforcement layers on the maximum value of the normalised peak footing load.4 1.11 0.5 1.06 0.2 1.2 0. 8.8 DR/B Figure 7.02 Test 0.2 1. 6 .08 Sf / B 0.8 1.00 0.05 0.0 1.6 0.6 0.13 Group-a: L/B=1 0.4 0. NO.03 FEM 0. (b) effect of number of reinforcement layers on the relative settlement at peak footing load.

02 Test 0.05 0. GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. KOTAKE et al. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load (a) 600 (a) Group-b: n=3 500 400 Nγ (=2q / γd B ) 300 200 FEM 100 Test 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 L/B (b) (b) 0.06 0.08 Sf / B 0. Group A physical experimental results and FEM analysis results: (a) effect of reinforcement length on the maximum value of the normalised peak footing load.10 0.07 0. 6 517 .00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 L/B Figure 8.04 0.11 0.13 Group-b: n=3 0.01 0. NO.03 FEM 0. VOL.12 0.14 0. (b) effect of reinforcement length on the relative settlement at peak footing load. 8.09 0.15 0.

VOL. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load in the paper by Siddiquee et al. 1999): (a) cases a to d. 6 Figure 9. NO.66 (Figures 19 and 20 KOTAKE et al. (a) (b) 518 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. Effects of influencing factors on the load-settlement relationship in the numerical analysis compared with the physical test result for a strip footing with a width of 500 mm under plane strain conditions on Toyoura sand with a void ratio equal to 0. 8. (b) cases e to j. .

10 9 Strain softening J 2. The initial stiffness and the peak footing load of reinforced ground increase signifi- cantly with the increase in the number of reinforcement layers (i. 8. Analysis cases and assumptions used in each case (Siddiquee et al.4. φ = 49° 3 Elasto-perfectly plastic D 2. Sf /B. 3. 5. Figures 6 and 8 show the Group B physical experimental GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. Long Reinforcement. It is also true. despite the fact that the reinforcement length. 1999) Analysis case Assumptions Assumption number Assumption definition A 1 1 Linear elastic: E = 125. 10. 9 8 Strength anisotropy I 2. and this trend is stronger with better reinforced ground. observed in the physical experiment results summarised above. however. NO. VOL. 5. 7. the deep foot- ing mechanism). B. 6. The following trends of behaviour can be observed in the results from the physical experiments on Group A models shown in Figures 5 and 7: 1. ν = 0. 7. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load Table 1. 5. 7. is not the unique reinforcing mechanism that increases the bearing capacity of level ground subjected to a footing load. 6. 7 6 Isotropic hardening G 2. 6 519 .3 Reinforced Ground Short Reinforcement. This result indicates that the so-called anchoring mechanism by a part of the reinforcement layers extending outside the potential failure zone. 3. 9.e. 7. in particular the effects of reinforcement on the coefficient Nγ (Figure 7a). 8. KOTAKE et al. 8. advocated by Binquent and Lee (1975). that the FEM analysis exhibits noticeably higher pre-peak stiffness and smaller relative settle- ment at peak footing load. G = f(p. 5. It may also be seen that the FEM analyses can reasonably simulate Trends 1 and 2. at least until the depth of the reinforced zone becomes 1. (Figure 7b) when compared with those from the phys- ical experiments. 11 10 Shear banding 11 Double yield surface model iour becomes more different between the FEM analysis and the physical experiment. The effects of the number of reinforcement layers on the bearing capacity charac- teristics are significant.3 B 2 2 Nonlinear elastic: E = 2(1+ν)G. 5. 8. φ = 49° 5 Non-associated flow rule F 2. The settlement at peak footing load increases with the increase in the bearing capacity of ground subjected to a footing load. 5. 6. 4. 8 7 Pressure level dependency of φ H 2. 5. B.5 times as large as the footing width. 3. was the same as the footing width.6 MPa. 6. 2. These issues are discussed later in Section 4.. 6. φ = 49° 4 Associated flow rule E 2.e) C 2. 9. 4. L. 6.

for the cases of L/B ≥ 2. 2. it is unlikely that this factor can explain the major discrepancy observed in the rein- forced model ground.0 while the FEM analysis underestimates the footing settlement at the peak footing load (Figure 8b). NO. 8. It can also be seen that the FEM simulation captures the trends of behaviour described above. 1. that. in which the reinforcement layers are longer than the footing width.0 until the depth of the lowest reinforcement layer becomes 1. 4. Numerical procedure and constitutive modelling: (a)Non-uniform finite element mesh in terms of size and shape: This factor could not be directly confirmed in the present study. and • strain fields in the ground obtained from the present FEM analysis are very similar to those observed in the physical experiments as described in Section 5. it is efficient to increase the reinforcement length L from B to 2B as far as the footing load is vertical and central. that when using the same amount of reinforcement. the FEM analy- ses overestimate the Nγ values (Figure 8a) to a greater extent than the case of L/B = 1.4 Possible Factors Responsible for the Discrepancy Between the Numerical Analysis and the Physical Experiments There are a number of possible factors responsible for the discrepancy in the pre-peak stiffness and peak footing load between the FEM analyses and the physical experi- ments. n. B. KOTAKE et al. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load results. of reinforcement layers having a length ratio of L/B = 1. Despite this. it is more cost-effective to increase the number. Due to computational time. it seems that the effect of this factor on the present FEM analysis results are insignificant because. The fol- lowing trends of behaviour can be observed in the physical experimental results. However. which was used throughout in the present study. In particular. or Figures 7a and 8a. is essentially the same as the one obtained from physical experiment results (Kotake 1998).5B than to increase the length ratio L/B to more than 2 with n = 3. it was not possible to perform FEM analyses using a fine mesh in the whole analysis domain as was used around the footing base. however. Effects of bedding error at the footing base on the measured footing settlements in the physical experiments: The effect of this factor could only be a part of the dis- crepancy between the FEM analysis and the physical experiment. • it was confirmed that the initial K0 stress state obtained by the FEM gravita- tional force analysis using the meshing shown in Figure 4. 6 . It is also true. 520 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. This result also indicates that the so-called anchoring effect by a part of the rein- forcement layer extending outside the potential failure zone (Binquent and Lee 1975) is not relevant to the present case either. VOL. To increase the bearing capacity and initial rigidity of ground subjected to a footing load. including the following: 1. 2. It may be seen from the comparison of Figures 5 and 6. the improvement rate noticeably decreases as the length ratio L/B increases to more than 2.

the pressure level increases only with a small increase in the stress ratio. 1999. Kotake et al. (d)Under-prediction of shear strain in the model sand ground due to the improper constitutive modelling of the stress-strain behaviour of sand. NO. in the present case. as discussed below. On the other hand. the effects of the second factor could be significant.3 that in this zone. each reinforcement layer consisting of strips was modelled into a planar reinforcement layer in the present 2-D analysis. However. It seems that the effects of this factor will also be small. as. the stress paths are very similar to those during anisotropic compression at a high constant stress ratio close to the failure envelop. 6 521 . while no particular interface elements were used to account for possible interaction at the sand-reinforcing members interface. this factor is only part of the cause for the discrepancy between the FEM analysis and the physical experiments. Yasin and Tatsuoka (2000) investigated the effects of intermediate stress paths on strain values at a given target stress point by performing a series of special plane strain compression tests on Toyoura sand along various stress paths starting from the com- mon origin on the stress plane. which primarily controls the bearing capac- ity of ground. This is particularly the case for reinforced ground. when increasing the footing load. 8. is insignificant (Tani 1986). (c)Approximate nature of the reinforcement modelling and the interface between the sand and reinforcement. the shear strain becomes larger when having traced intermedi- ate stress paths closer to the failure envelope (such as anisotropic compression at a high constant stress ratio) than when having traced intermediate stress paths more remote from the failure envelop (such as isotropic compression followed by plane strain compression at a constant confining pressure). the amount of the rotation of the principal stress direction in the sand zone immediately below the footing. VOL. of reinforcement decreases and the stiffness of the reinforcement decreases. In particular. and (ii) stress path dependency of strain. The authors of the present paper will report the results in the future. KOTAKE et al. 1988). Therefore. It seems that the effect of the first factor is not significant when based on the results from a series of torsional shear tests on dense Toyoura sand (Pradhan et al. as it has been confirmed that the present meshing is fine enough in that effects of some changes in the fineness of mesh from that shown in Figure 4 on the pre-peak behaviour and peak footing load are insignificant (Siddiquee et al. As mentioned earlier. It seems that this assumption is relevant. Kotake (1998) found that the effects of this factor became more impor- tant as the cover ratio. 1999). the present FEM analysis is based on the constitutive model GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load (b)Approximated nature of the modelling of strain localization. On the other hand. There could be two potentially influencing sub-factors: (i) continuous rotation of the principal stress direction on the stress-strain behaviour of the sand. CR. The strength of the zone in the ground immediately below the footing controls the bearing capacity of the ground. Yasin and Tatsuoka (2000) found that both volumetric and shear strains observed at a given target stress state become noticeably stress path- dependent. It is shown in Section 6. Kotake (1998) performed an FEM analysis considering this factor by introducing equivalent reduced interface friction angles between the linear-discrete reinforcement and the sand.

1 General In Figures 10 through 16.03). peak (S/B = 0.55). (2001a) showed that the stress path-dependency of plastic strains observed in the plane strain compression tests reported by Yasin and Tatsuoka (2000) could be properly simulated by this new formulation. Another important limitation of the present numerical analysis is that the post-peak behaviour observed in the physical model tests is relatively poorly simulated. the strain fields on the σ2 plane obtained from the displace- ment fields measured in the physical experiments are compared with those obtained from the FEM analysis. perhaps better than those predicted by most numerical analysis procedures reported in the literature. which is stress path-independent. the contours of the maximum shear strains. The results from this recent analysis will be reported in the near future by the authors of the present paper. the present simulation procedure can predict the effects of the reinforcement layer arrangement on the pre- peak load-settlement relationship and the peak footing load with reasonable accuracy. 5. the constitutive model was constructed using the data from PSC tests in which the specimens were subjected to first isotropic compression and then axial compression at a constant confining pressure. and it is to a larger extent with more effectively reinforced ground (Kotake 1998. (2001b) devel- oped another type of constitutive model using the modified irreversible strain energy as the hardening parameter. Figure 11 shows the γmax contours at four loading stages: pre-peak (S/ B = 0. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load assuming that the hardening parameter for the yield function is the plastic shear strain. Therefore. Kotake et al. 8. In Figures 10 to 16. More studies will be necessary to know whether the observed post-peak behaviour can be better simulated when based on the large-strain theory. VOL. Peng et al. and the pre-peak load-settlement relationship and peak foot- ing load observed in the physical experiments reported in the present paper could be much better simulated by the FEM analysis based on the new approach. from the corre- 522 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. 2000). it is likely that this 2-D factor is the most impor- tant among those listed above. 5 STRAIN FIELDS 5. accumulated from the start of loading are presented. and thereby the footing settlement. γmax = ε1 − ε3 . 6 . In addition.2 Unreinforced Ground Figure 10 shows the γmax contours observed at the peak footing load state (at S/B = 0. and post-peak (S/B = 0. while the plastic shear strain (and associated plastic volumetric strain) is stress path- independent.07 and 0. NO.07) in the physical experiment for the unreinforced model ground (Huang and Tat- suoka 1990). Peng et al.12). are underestimated in the present FEM analysis. Peng et al. It seems that this limitation is due primarily to the fact that the present numerical analysis is based on the small-strain theory. KOTAKE et al. it is likely that the shear strains in the ground. 1999. Despite the several important limitations discussed above. In view of the above.

8. it can be seen that the FEM analysis simulates the strain field very well. including the shear banding pattern observed in the physical experiment. indicating the formation of a wedge bounded by well-defined shear bands immediately below the footing.07) for the physical experiment and the FEM analysis. KOTAKE et al. 6 523 . a shear band starts to develop at each edge of the footing. 3. The stress state in zones where γmax ≈ 5% can be consid- ered to be at or approximately at the peak stress state. the following trends of behaviour may be seen in Figure 11: 1. Inside the section close to the footing edge of the shear band. the shear GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. Strain field at the peak state (S/B = 0. At S/B = 0. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load Figure 10. Figure 11c). the zones having γmax ≈ 5% further develop. NO. sponding FEM analysis. Until the peak footing load state (S/B = 0. 2.03 (in the pre-peak regime. indicating that the stress state in that section has already become close to the residual stress state.055. γmax > 20%. This strain field obtained from the numerical analysis is consistent to the one obtained from the physical experiment (Figure 10). By comparing the strain fields at the same relative settlement (S/B = 0.07 (immediately after the peak footing load state.07) in the unreinforced ground from the physical experiment (after Huang & Tatsuoka 1990) (contours of the maximum shear strains. Figure 11b) is reached. Figure 11a). VOL. as the shear strain at the peak state is approximately 5% in the corresponding PSC test (Figure A1). In addition. At S/B = 0. γmax = ε1 − ε3 ).

Strain fields in the unreinforced ground from the FEM analysis (the vertical and horizontal axes are length in centimeters): (a) S/B = 0.07. 6 . VOL.12. 524 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. KOTAKE et al. (d) S/B = 0. NO. (b) S/B = 0.55 (peak footing load). (c) S/B = 0. 8. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load (a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 11.3 (pre-peak).

performed as a reference test for Test 10. It is to be noted. in which a rigid and rough deep footing with Df /B = 0. 3. 5.0) with the deepest reinforcement layer at a depth of DR /B= 0. while the shear strains in the zones outside the shear bands (i. 2. as predicted by the classical bearing capacity theory (e.3 Reinforced Ground With Short Reinforcement Layers Figure 12 shows the γmax contours for the following three states in the physical model tests of Group A. This similarity in the strain field indicates that the reinforced zone in Test 10 behaves like the underground part of a rigid footing. S/B = Sf /B = 0. to a higher extent than it is in the unreinforced ground (Figure 10). indicating that any numerical analysis not taking into account this phenomenon cannot be warranted. 8. remaining at relatively small values. yielding with the increase in the plastic shear strain is continuing inside the shear bands.. The failure of the reinforced sand ground in Test 10 is highly progressive.03). 4.09 (peak footing load state) in Test 10.9 was placed in unreinforced sand ground. VOL. NO. while the passive zone is not yet formed at this stage.. Figure 13 shows the γmax contours at four loading stages obtained from the FEM analyses of Test 10: pre-peak (S/B = 0. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load strain concentrates more extensively into the shear band. the zones inside and outside the wedge) have not increased noticeably from the values at the peak footing load state. exhibiting the deep footing mechanism. peak (S/B = 0. Terzaghi (1943)). of which the pattern and shape is similar to that of the active zone that developed below a rigid deep footing (Figure 12c). At the peak footing load state (Figure 12b). the yielding conditions inside and outside the shear bands are utterly different from each other.e. reported by Huang and Tatsuoka (1990): 1. only small strains are induced inside the reinforced zone extending to a depth of DR within the footing width beneath the footing. while elastic rebounding with no increase in the plastic strain is taking place outside the shear bands. KOTAKE et al.07 (pre-peak state) in Test 10. The following trends of behaviour may be seen from Figure 12: 1. In Test 10. 3. 6 525 .g. while a pair of shear bands develop along the vertical lateral faces of the reinforced zone already well before the peak footing load state (Figure 12a). the shear band further develops forming transient zones on both sides of the active wedge. This result indicates that. 2. that the formation of the wedge zone and transient zones is highly progres- sive. as the loading further proceeds. As seen in Figure 11d. in which a surface footing was placed on sand ground reinforced with three layers of short reinforcement (L/B = 1. a largely strained zone forms below the reinforced zone. in the post-peak footing load regime. how- ever.e.9. S/B = Sf /B = 0.05). i.09 (peak footing load state) in Test 6.. S/B = 0. These results indicate that the failure of unreinforced sand ground (and also rein- forced ground as shown below) is highly progressive. and post-peak (S/B = GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001.

9. NO. DR = 0. Strain fields from the physical experiments (after Huang and Tatsuoka 1990): (a) Test No. S/B = KOTAKE et al. 6.9. 10. DR = 0. L/B = 1. deep footing. L/B = 1. .09. 8. unreinforced. DR = 0. S/B = 0.09. (b) Test No. (a) (b) (c) 526 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. S/B = 0. (c) Test No. VOL. n = 3. 6 Figure 12.9.07. n = 3. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load 0. 10.

10 (post-peak). • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load (a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 13.9 (the vertical and horizontal axes are length in centimeters): (a) S/B = 0. 8. (c) S/B = 0.05 (peak footing load). Strain fields in the reinforced ground from the FEM analysis with L/B = 1.15 (post-peak). 6 527 .03 (pre-peak). VOL. and DR = 0. KOTAKE et al. NO. GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. n = 3. (d) S/B = 0. (b) S/B = 0.

15 (post-peak footing load state. The following features may be noted from Figure 14: 1. it may be seen that the strain field pattern. 5. performed to evaluate the effects of the length of the reinforcement. It is likely that by behaving like a flexible slab foundation that is wider than B. say 2B. the zone reinforced with reinforcement layers longer than B spreads the footing load more widely in the ground (i. 8.0 (Figures 12a and 12b). in sand ground reinforced with short reinforcement layers observed in the physical exper- iment (Test 10) is simulated very well by the FEM analysis. a wedge that is similar to the ones when L/B = 1.0 in Group A (Figures 12a and b) is formed immediately below the reinforcing zone. unlike the case of unreinforced sand ground (Figures 10 and 11). after having reached the apex of the active wedge. forming a well-defined active wedge beneath the reinforced zone. the wide slab mechanism). In summary. The following trends of behaviour can also be seen in Figure 13: 1. being restrained by the reinforcement stiffness. Figure 13d). 3. KOTAKE et al.4 Reinforced Ground With Long Reinforcement Layers Figure 14 compares the strain fields in terms of γmax contours at S/B = 0. 2. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load 0. By comparing Figures 12a and Figure 13a (at pre-peak footing load state) and Figures 12b and Figure 13b (at peak footing load state). showing the development of shear bands by footing loading.15).07 obtained from three physical experiments with L/B = 2. It is likely that clearly defined shear bands cannot develop while passing through the rein- forcement layers.07 is the footing settle- ment ratio at which the peak footing load was attained in the unreinforced sand loaded with a surface footing.10 (post-peak footing load state. This means that the effective width of the “wide slab foundation” cannot become much larger than a certain critical value. a shear band develops down- ward fully along the respective lateral face of the reinforced zone. S/B = 0. Figure 13b)..5.10 and 0. 3. 6 . 2. Figure 13c). At S/B = 0. The strain field does not change largely as L becomes larger than 2B. as typically observed 528 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001.e. and 6 of Group B. the shear band develops further. 3. The strain fields from the FEM analysis shown in Figure 13 also show that the fail- ure of reinforced ground upon footing-loading is highly progressive. VOL. the strain fields obtained from the physical experiments show that the reinforcing mechanism for the sand ground that is densely reinforced by using long reinforcement layers consists of: (i) the deep footing mechanism.03 (the peak footing load state. Figure 13a). the strain field becomes different from that in the test with L/B = 1. a shear band starts to develop from each edge of the footing nearly in the vertical direction. 4. Despite the diffusion of shear bands due to an interaction with the long reinforce- ment layers.05 (peak footing load state. starting the for- mation of a transient zone outside the active wedge. diffusing the shear bands and spreading the zones with larger strains into wider areas. At S/B = 0. At S/B = 0. NO. At S/B = 0. By using reinforcement longer than the footing width B. the shear band further extends laterally.

8. Strain fields from the physical experiments in reinforced ground with S/B = 0. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load 529 . L/B = 2. 18. n = 3. 17.5.5. L/B = 3. (c) Test No. NO. VOL. 6 Figure 14. 12.07 (after Huang and Tatsuoka 1990): (a) Test No. n = 3. (b) Test No. (a) (b) (c) GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. KOTAKE et al. L/B = 3. n = 3.

6 . and 15c show the strain fields at S/B = 0. KOTAKE et al. VOL.10 obtained from the FEM analysis. (b) L/B = 3. Strain fields in the reinforced ground from the FEM analysis with S/B = 0. NO.07 from the physical model tests (Fig- (a) (b) (c) Figure 15. 15b.0.10 (the vertical and horizontal axes are length in centimeters): (a) L/B = 2. Figures 15a. 530 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load when L/B = 1. (c) L/B = 6. corresponding to those at S/B = 0. and (ii) the wide slab mechanism.5. 8.

in the case of L/B = 1. and 6 when the number of reinforcement layer is equal to three. similar to those presented in Figure 17. show- ing that the wide slab mechanism is relevant in the case of L/B = 2 (n = 3).5. it may be seen that the strain fields observed in the physical experiments are well simulated by the FEM analysis.08). The following trends of behaviour may be seen: 1. By comparing Figures 14 and 15. NO. It may be seen that the basic features of the pattern of the strain field within the footing width seen in Figure 16 is similar to the one in the case of L/B = 1 (n = 3) presented in Figure 13. showing that the reinforcements are effectively restraining the deformation of the surrounding sand.1 Contact Pressure at the Footing Base Figure 17a shows the distributions of contact pressure at the footing base at the respec- tive peak footing load state for sand ground that is either unreinforced or reinforced with different numbers of reinforcement layers. This is a natural consequence of the fact that the deep footing mechanism is the major factor for the increase in the bearing capacity of ground by reinforcement in the present case.0. It is difficult to examine this point from the strain fields obtained from the physical experiments (Figure 14). • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load ure 14). and post-peak (S/B = 0. extending to outside the footing width.0. Figure 16 shows the strain fields in terms of γmax contours at four loading stages for the case of L/B = 2 (n = 3) obtained from the FEM analyses: pre-peak (S/B = 0.0. with the increase in the length of the reinforcement from L/B = 1. Figure 17b shows the corresponding results from the FEM analysis. This is another validation of the FEM method used in the present study. The contact pressure at the footing base generally increases with increases in the number of reinforcement layers with a larger increase at locations closer to the cen- tre of the footing. VOL. The distributions of contact pressure obtained from the FEM analyses agree very well with the physical experimental results. in particular. 3. n.0 to 2. Note that the stress distributions for the full footing width are presented in Figure 17a.0. 2. KOTAKE et al.10 and 0. For example. the wide slab mechanism observed in the physical experiments is captured very well by the FEM analysis. Figures 18a and 18b compare the contact pressure distributions at the respective peak loading state between the physical experiment and the FEM analysis. It is to be noted that the interaction between the shear bands and the reinforcement layers can be better understood from the strain fields obtained from the FEM analysis.15). for the length ratios L/B = 1. peak (S/B = 0. while those for a half of the footing width are shown in Figure 17b. 8. 6 531 . 6 STRESS FIELDS 6. It may also be seen that the zones with higher strains become larger. The following trends GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. 2. The contact pressure distribution when the ground is not reinforced is also shown for the reference.06). it may be seen from Figure 15 that the strain is larger at the middle height of the respective sand layer sandwiched between two vertically adja- cent reinforcement layers. obtained from the physical experiments (Group A).

(c) S/B = 0. 532 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. (d) S/B = 0. 8. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load (a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 16.9 (the vertical and horizontal axes are length in centimeters): (a) S/B = 0.15 (post-peak). NO. n = 3.10 (post-peak). VOL. 6 .06 (pre-peak). KOTAKE et al. Strain fields in the reinforced ground from the FEM analysis with L/B = 2.08 (peak footing load). and DR = 0. (b) S/B = 0.

KOTAKE et al. NO. the deep footing mechanism is more important than the wide slab mechanism. n=5 ~0 kN/m ) DR/B=0. Despite the fact that the reinforcement layers are longer than the footing width B. while the rate of increase is very small when L/B becomes larger than 2. n=1 2 Normal stress on footing base.e. The contact pressure at the footing base generally increases with increases in the length of the reinforcement layer. 8. (b) FEM analysis. L/B = 1. the increase in the contact pressure at the footing base by reinforcement is substan- tially larger at locations closer to the center of the footing. It seems that the contri- bution of the wide slab mechanism to the increase in the bearing capacity by using reinforcement layers longer than B is reflected in the increase in the contact pres- sure at locations closer to the footing edge.. 3. 2.5. even when rein- forcement layers are longer than B.6. n=2 DR/B=0. n=3 2 5 DR/B=0. of behaviour may be noted from Figure 18: 1.0).9. q ( 1 Unreinforced 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 X (cm) Figure 17. 6 533 . These results indicate that. This trend of behaviour corresponds to the effects of rein- forcement length on the Nγ value (Figure 8a). compared with that seen in the case of short reinforcement (i. the distributions of contact pressure obtained from the FEM anal- GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. Normal stress distribution on the footing base at the respective peak footing load state (Group A): (a) physical experiments (after Huang and Tatsuoka 1990).3. Also in this case. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load (a) (b) Center of Footing 6 DR/B=1. VOL.

19b. and 19c show the contours of the major. σ3 . despite that this information is essential for a better understanding of the reinforcement mechanism. 6. which supports the major part of the foot- ing load. principal stresses at the respective peak loading stage obtained from the FEM analyses for: (i) unreinforced ground. L/B= 1 4 forced L/B= 0 2 1 4 Norm alStress on Footing Base 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 X (cm) 0 1 2 3 4 5 LoadcellNo. The values of σ1 and σ3 in the high stress zones correspond to each other. 8. (ii) reinforced ground (L/B = 1 and n = 3). and minor. The following trends of behaviour can be seen in Figures 19a. 6 .5 ~0 (kN/m ) 2 L/B=1 2 L/B= 2 5 Normal stress on footing base. Figures 19a. and 19c: 1. KOTAKE et al. if not impossible. (b) FEM analysis.2 Stress Fields in the Ground It is extremely difficult. therefore. yses agree very well with the physical experimental results. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load (a) Center of Footing (b) Center of Footing 5 6 10 kN/m ) L/B=6 2 L/B=3.5 L/B= 6 L/B=2 L/B= 3. 2. σ1 . to evaluate in detail the stress fields in the ground by physical experiments using sand. 19b. NO. and (iii) reinforced ground (L/B = 2 and n = 3). 5 0 5 (cm ) Figure 18. In fact. It is valuable. VOL. q ( ~ Unrein. to examine the stress fields obtained from the FEM analysis. This result corresponds to the pattern of the increase in the contact pressure at the footing base by footing loading (Figures 17 and 18). 534 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. The increase in the values of σ1 and σ3 associated with footing loading is particu- larly large in the zone below the footing. Normal stress distribution on the footing base at the respective peak footing load state (Group B): (a) physical experiments (after Huang 1988).

0 0.3 60 0. Contours for principal stresses σ1 and σ3 at the respective peak footing load state(the vertical and horizontal axes are length in centimeters): (a) unreinforced. n=3. n=3.3 70 70 1.0 Unreinforced: S/B=0.7 66 0.4 60 1.3 62 0.0 62 62 0.08 74 74 0.10 62 62 0.0 4.2 66 1. S/B=0. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load (a) 76 CL 76 C L Unreinforced: S/B=0. S/B=0.05 74 74 72 σ3 ( x 102 kN/cm2) 72 σ1 ( x 102 kN/cm2) 0.20 σ1 ( x 102 kN/cm2) 70 70 68 68 2.08 L/B=2. 6 535 . n=3.00 0.0 L/B=1.9 σ3 ( x 102 kN/cm2) 5.0 64 0.20. n = 3).10 0.5 64 0. GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001.0 2.50 0. VOL.5 3.10 58 58 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 (b) C L C L 76 76 L/B=1.8 64 3.0 68 0.2 1.7 68 3.0 2.0 66 0.0 58 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 (c) C L C L 76 76 L/B=2. 8. S/B=0.0 74 74 72 0.00.20 1.20 64 64 0.0 0.10.20 60 1.0 σ1 ( x 102 kN/cm2) 72 72 1. KOTAKE et al.8 66 3.1 0. n=3.11.50 62 0.1 0.8 70 70 3.2 68 68 1.05 3.0 58 58 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 Figure 19.2 60 0. NO.5 0.30 σ3 ( x 102 kN/cm2) 72 0. S/B=0.50 60 0.6 60 0. n = 3).05 0.20.0 66 0.60. (b) reinforced (L/B =1.05 66 0.4 58 1. (c) reinforced (L/B = 2.0 64 0.

Kotake et al. 8. 85. KOTAKE et al.3 Local Stress Paths in the Ground The three figures of Figure 20b show the local stress paths on the σ1 − σ3 plane in the representative elements. Kotake et al. These elements are located either outside the shear band at different distances to the respective shear band or inside the shear band. the zone in which the pressure level increases by reinforcement is wider when L/B = 2 than when L/B = 1. 6 . (1999). This is discussed in Section 6. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load the stress ratio σ1 / σ3 in that zone is always close to the peak value (σ1 / σ3)peak . is insignificant when L > 2B (Figure 8a). (2000) showed that the rigidity of reinforcement and the spacing between vertically adjacent reinforcement layers are the two major factors that control the deformation and strength characteristics of reinforced PSC specimens. On the stress planes in Figure 20b. and 89.04. The ranges of footing settlement ratios. Note that the equi-shear strain lines. when L/B > 2 (Figure 19c) is noticeably higher than when L/B = 1 (Figure 19b). Unreinforced ground (the right of Figure 20a): (a)In Element 83. 1999. 6. Kotake (1998). L. for which the stress paths are presented are listed in the respective figure in Figure 20b. lines of constant principal stress ratios R = σ1 / σ3 are depicted for reference. Despite the above. The increase in the stress level in the central part of the reinforced zone. γmax . located at three locations at the same depth in the three cases shown in Figure 20a. the increase in the stress level by the deep footing mechanism seen in Figure 19b is the major component of the increase in the stress level seen in Figure 19c. Peng et al. This implies that whether the internal failure in the reinforced zone or the external failure below the reinforced zone takes place in such bearing capacity tests as those performed in the present study depends on the configuration of reinforcement layers. Peng et al. 3. 4. on this stress plane. NO. The stress state in the reinforced zone immediately below the footing is similar to the one in PSC specimens reinforced with tensile reinforcement layers (Kotake 1998. in particular at the levels of the first and second reinforce- ment layers (Figure 19c). The γmax contours at the respective post- peak footing load state obtained from the FEM analysis are shown in Figure 20a.3. Nos. indicating important effects of the wide slab mechanism. S/B. The strain and stress fields obtained from the physical tests and corresponding FEM analysis show that external failure took place in the present case. Corre- sponding to the above. the increase in the stress level in the zone adjacent to the side end of the reinforcement layers when the reinforcement length increases from 1B to 2B is insignificant. VOL. near the centreline of the footing. 83. The following points may be noted from Figure 20: 1. which is located adjacent to the centreline of the footing. are slightly curved due to their pressure- dependency (Appendix A). Correspondingly. The increase in the bearing capacity of reinforced ground with the increase in the length of reinforcement layers. 2000). which approximately represent the yield loci. both σ1 and σ3 values increases until S/B = 0. while the local principal stress ratio R = 536 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001.

VOL. 6 Figure 20. NO. KOTAKE et al. 8. (a) GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. Local stress paths of representative elements (the vertical axes are length in centimeters): (a) location of representative elements on γmax contours (continued on next page). • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load 537 .

05 Unreinforced 1 1 Unrnfcd (S/B=0 0̀.04) Unrnfcd (S/B=0 0̀.2 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.10 L/B=2 L/B=2 σ 1 (x10 kN/m ) 2 2 L/B=1 R=3 Unreinforced Unreinforced 0.04) Unrnfrcd (S/B=0 0̀.0 0.01 0.2 0.0 1.538 (b) R=7 6 5 R=8 7 6 5 R=7 5 Elem-83 5 Elem-85 Elem-89 0.01) L/B=1 (S/B=0 0̀.6 0.02) L/B=2 (S/B=0 0̀.05) L/B=1 (S/B=0 0̀. 8. (b) σ1 and σ3 relationships KOTAKE et al.00 0. 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 σ 3 (x10 kN/m ) σ 3 (x10 kN/m ) σ 3 (x10 kN/m ) Figure 20 continued.06) L/B=2 (S/B=0 0̀.02 0.4 0.8 1.0 1.03 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001.00 0.05) L/B=1 (S/B=0 0̀.07) 0 0 0.4 0.06) L/B=2 (S/B=0 0̀. VOL.8 1. NO.20 R=4 L/B=2 R=6 2 R=4 2 4 4 L/B=1 2 L/B=1 0.15 2 R=5 2 R=3 R=3 3 3 2 R=4 σ 1 (x10 kN/m ) σ 1 (x10 kN/m ) 0. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load .2 0.

05 (when L/B = 1) and S/B = 0. 8. With the increase in the footing load. which is equal to approximately 8. In the reinforced ground (the middle and left of Figure 20a): (a)In Elements 83 and 85. This result also indicates a highly progressive nature of the failure of reinforced sand ground subjected to a footing load. (c)Element 89 is located outside the wedge that is formed in the unreinforced ground while in the vicinity of the lateral surface of the reinforced zone (i. This trend is particularly relevant to the reinforced ground. 6 539 . VOL. as well as axial GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. showing significant effects of reinforcing. in the vicinity of the potential shear band in the reinforced ground). the values of both σ1 and σ3 increase at a nearly constant R. Also. (b)The value of R = σ1 / σ3 is slightly lower in the reinforced ground with L/B = 2 than in the ground reinforced with L/B = 1. equal to approximately 7. which results in the increase in σ1 . the stress ratio R = σ1 / σ3 is kept noticeably below the peak value. is reached before the peak footing load is attained. Until the peak footing load state is attained at S/B = 0. and then it starts decreasing with the stress state entering into the local post-peak regime before the peak footing load state is attained at S/B = 0. This is due to the progressive failure of the ground. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load σ1 / σ3 is always close to the peak value from immediately after the start of load- ing. is rather constant. due likely to positive effects of the wide slab mechanism. 2. even after the local peak state is attained while before the peak footing load is attained. The peak R value. both σ1 and σ3 increase more significantly than in the case of unreinforced ground. the deformation characteristics of dense Silver Leighton Buzzard (SLB) and Toyoura sands during anisotropic compression. which is located at the center of a half of the footing width while close to a potential shear band in the unreinforced ground. both σ1 and σ3 con- sistently increase while the R-value increases at a small rate from early stages of loading. In Element 89. R = σ1 / σ3 ≈ 5 at early stages of loading. KOTAKE et al.e. but it is not the increase in the R = σ1 / σ3 value. This result clearly shows that the most fundamental reinforcing mechanism is the increase in the σ3 value. showing that these elements have not reached the failure conditions. which are located inside the reinforced zone. probably due to a large rotation of the principal stress direction. equal to approximately 7. the local peak stress state is attained at relatively early loading stages.4. As mentioned in Section 4. increasing at a very low rate in a range between 4 and 5. The local principal stress ratio. In the reinforced ground with L/B = 2. (b)In Element 85. (c)These results indicate that the peak footing load is attained after the local peak stress state has been passed in many elements in the zone that supports the major part of the footing load. NO. R = σ1 / σ3 gradually increases until it reaches the peak value.055. As seen from the above. the stress paths in the elements beneath the footing are basically similar to that of anisotropic compression at a constant principal stress ratio at relatively high ratios.. the stress paths are generally very complicated.06 (when L/B = 2). More precisely. R = σ1 / σ3 .

6 . 540 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. Even in that case. Yasin et al. the contribu- tion of the wide-slab mechanism to the increase in the bearing capacity by rein- forcement becomes important. (ii) anisotropy. The strain and stress fields in the ground obtained from the FEM analyses recon- firmed several important findings obtained by the physical experiments on the rein- forcing mechanism. is more important than that of the wide-slab mechanism. subjected to foot- ing loading is highly progressive. 2. showing that the fundamental reinforcing mechanism is the increase in the σ3 value. (1997). These factors are as follows: (i) confining pressure. In particular. both under plane strain conditions. 7 CONCLUSIONS In studying the results from the FEM analysis presented above. The nonlinear. (b)When the reinforcing members are longer than the footing width. elasto-plastic FEM procedure described in the present paper could simulate well the reinforcing effects on the bearing capacity of sand ground sub- jected to footing loadings. the changes in the fail- ure mode of the ground by reinforcing with different arrangements of reinforce- ment layers observed in the physical experiments could be well simulated. the contribution by the deep footing mechanism. and (v) strain localization into a shear band(s) with a width in proportional to the particle size. it is essential to properly simulate the progressive failure of ground. They found noticeable effects of intermedi- ate stress paths on the strain values. VOL. KOTAKE et al. In particular. (iii) nonlinear pre-peak strain-hardening and strain-softening. The degree of progressive failure becomes more pronounced as the reinforcing effects become larger. as typically observed when the length of reinforcement lay- ers is equal to the footing width. were studied by Tatsuoka and Kohata (1995). and Yasin and Tatsuoka (2000). 8. in particular that of reinforced ground. the stress paths in the zone support- ing the major part of the footing load are similar to that of anisotropic compres- sion at a constant high stress ratio. (iv) dilatancy. which are not taken into account in the present FEM analysis. observed in physical model experiments using different numbers and lengths of reinforcement layers. Realistic numerical solutions of the bearing capacity characteristics of dense sand ground with and without reinforcement layers subjected to a footing load could be obtained by properly taking into account the effects of the relevant factors on the deformation and strength characteristics of sand. the following conclu- sions can be derived: 1. which becomes more important with reinforced ground. including the following: (a)The failure of ground. NO. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load compression at a constant confining pressure following isotropic compression. (c)In both unreinforced and reinforced ground. 3.

Iwasaki. pp. Vol. 1978. N. Vol. Ju. Tanaka. Doctoral Thesis. No. and Menq.C. 5. N. Soils and Foundations. Guido. F. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Geotextiles and Geomembranes. Yamanouchi. H. 1. J.C. Vol. and Sweeney.. 1988. Soils and Foundations. K. 1975. T. Japan. Tatsuoka. T.. “Bearing Capacity of Sand Founda- tion Reinforced by Geonet”. Earth Reinforcement. 40. Soils and Foundations. and Tatsuoka. C. Tatsuoka. 6 541 . N. Vol. Miura.. and Lawton. pp.. 18.. C.. 1994. October 1988. Huang. Yasufuku. 17. “Shear Moduli of Sands Under Cyclic Torsional Loading”. 110. Fragaszy. 5. C. “Stability of Loaded Footings on Rein- forced Soil”. 65-73. “Deep-Footing and Wide-Slab Effects in Rein- forced Sandy Ground”. T. Fukuoka Kyushu.. and Sato. Binquent..P. J. 107.K. Huang. pp. Vol. 1997. 1986. Huang.A.. Vol. “Stability Analysis for Footings on Reinforced Sand Slopes”. 1996. 1. 2. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement. Editors.. 1981... No. 679-706. Huang. R. “Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Subgrades”. Y. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load REFERENCES Akinmusuur. 30-36. Huang. “Prediction of Bearing Capacity in Level Sandy Ground Reinforced with Strip Reinforcement”. 6. No.. 123. Kotake. No.C. 603-608. 9. T. Kotake.. “Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Horizontal Sandy Ground”. Proceed- ings of the International Geotechnical Symposium on Theory and Practice of Earth Reinforcement. Vol.O. Tokyo. VOL. Soils and Foundations. F. “Failure Mechanisms of Reinforced Sand Slopes Loaded With a Footing”. and Tatsuoka. Vol. 8.O.. “A Uniform Strain Hexahedron and Quadri- lateral with Orthogonal Hourglass Control”. pp. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. Editors. 3. pp. 21-37. I. J. and Jung.J.. M. D. Ochiai. 2000. C. F. 819-827. International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering. pp. Japan. H. 107. Huang. and Ochiai. 1997.C. D. C. F. N. pp. 1. 236-267. pp. J..L. 191-196. No. 1990. and Omine. No.. H.. Flanagan. “Ultimate Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Footings on Reinforced Sandy Ground”. V.O. “Numerical Simulation GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. Chang. F. University of Tokyo. Japan.. “FEM Simulation of Deformation and Failure of Reinforced Soil”. 1998. 6. Tatsuoka. Vol. Balkema.. “Comparison of Geogrid and Geotexile Reinforced Earth Slabs”. 1994. 10. S. No. Theory and Practice of Earth Rein- forcement. E..A. 1.L.. Vol..G. F. Fukuoka.. 1981.. KOTAKE et al. and Tatsuoka. and Belytschko. 34. Son. C. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering.. and Akinbolade. Y.. No. 34. pp.. L. and Lee. pp. 4.. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. Vol.Y. and Takagi. November 1996. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineer- ing. No.C. pp. Vol. Kim. No.. 27-40. NO. 39-56. No. Balkema.. 435-440. 819-827. and Hong. and Yamauchi. J.C. 1984.W. 1500-1511. K. pp. F.. 23. pp. “Bearing Capacity of Loaded Footings on Rein- forced Soil”.Y.

S. F. 3. Proceedings of the Tenth International Con- ference on Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG). “A New Consti- tutive Model for Granular Materials”. No.C. N.. pp. 500-527. F. Kotake. “Plane Strain Compression Behavior of Geogrid-Reinforced Sand and its Numerical Analysis”. “Some Factors Affecting Ko-Values of Sand Mea- sured in Triaxial Cell”. NO. 3. Geosynthetics Engineering Journal.S.L. F. 1962.. “Anisotropic Strength and Deformation of Sands in Plane Strain Compression”. 1984.J. Rowe. F.. Vol.. 55-74. and Mroz.. pp. “The Stress Dilatancy Relation for Static Equilibrium of an assem- bly of Particles in Contact. C. Pradhan.M. Pietruszcak.. Y. Siddiquee. India. Asaoka. Pittsburgh. S. F. “Numerical Simulation of the Bearing Capacity of a Strip Footing on Reinforced Sand”.. S. Kotake. Siddiquee. pp. United Kingdom.. “Finite Element Analysis of Deformation of Strain Softening”. London. Vol. N..A. H. Vol. 1-4. 39. 19. Perga- mon. Tatsuoka. pp. Series A. M. the IGS Japan Chapter.... 3. Peng. 327-334. P.. ASCE. 5. Hirakawa. “An Insight into the Failure of Reinforced Sand in Plane Strain Compression by FEM Simulation”. pp.. Adachi. pp.” Proceedings of the Royal Society. Z.52-68. 383-388.T. and Horii. 24.. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load of Strain Localization and Failure in Reinforced Sand”. Tatsuoka. No. Soils and Foundations. pp. and Yasin. 1988.. Tanaka. No. 247-252. Soils and Foundations. 1994.. F. 40. and Tatsuoka.A. 1986... Japan. Pennsylvania. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Confer- ence on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. J. 1999.B. Proceedings of the International Symposium Deformation and Progressive Failure in Geomechanics. Arizona.. Vol. Siddiquee. KOTAKE et al. M. 23. International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering. and Tatsuoka.S. 1981.. 6 . F. A.. Tatsuoka. Deformation and Progres- sive Failure in Geomechanics.. Park. Vol.A. and Elias. 75-82. Ortiz. 1. F..A. New Delhi. Nagoya-shi. pp. Siddiquee. “Strength and Deformation Charac- teristics of Sand in Torsional Simple Shear”. F. 17. D. and Yamauchi. Schlosser. 1978. International Journal of Numeri- cal Methods in Engineering. T.W. 735-763. Tucson. T. 2001b. F. T. Peng. F. 749-767. 8. pp. 3. M.. and Simo.L. pp. USA. “Friction in Reinforced Earth”.. Editors. 1. Vol.. N. Tatsuoka. Peng.. January 2001. IS-NAGOYA’97. and Tatsuoka. pp. 2001a.C. S. M.S. “Tracing the Equilibrium Path by Dynamic Relaxation in Materially Nonlinear Problems”.L. T. VOL.V. and Oka. N.. 103-130. Tatsuoka. No. Kotake. pp. and Huang. Soils and Foundations. M. USA. “An Analysis of a New Class of Integration Alogo- rithms for Elasto-Plstic Constitutive Relations”. Vol. Proceedings of the ASCE Symposium on Earth Reinforcement.. Balkema. 3. pp.S. No. F. Vol. Soils and Foundations. 542 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001... 2000. No.. April 1978. F. Tanaka. 353-366. T. 1995. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics. Vol. 28. 131-48. and Tanaka. Okochi.

W. T... Colorado. T. Okamura. Y. 1993. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement Practice.S. pp. K.. No... 1.. Proceedings of the Interna- tional Symposium on Pre-failure Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials. “Stiffness of Hard Soils and Soft Rocks in Engi- neering Applications”. No.S..... 2.. Kawamura. No.. 947-1063. Hayashi. Tanaka. 1995. and Kawamoto. 1990. K. T..C. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load Siddiquee. J. pp.. Tani. T. T. Ochiai. 1. “Three-Dimensional Finite Element Collapse Analysis for Foundations and Slopes Using Dynamic Relaxation”. and Kohata. Editors.. T. 1986. K. S. 1999. 1993. McLean. T. 8. Editors.. Tatsuoka. Tatsuoka. T. Torii. 1. November 1992... “Mechanism of Bearing Capacity Failure of Shallow Foundation on Sand”. 1. and Hino. and Tani. F. Balkema.. 33. 11- 22. Tanaka. 40.. “Progressive Failure and Scale Effect of Trap-Door Problems with Granular Materials”. N. pp. S.. 1992. and Otani. “Numerical Simulation of Bearing Capacity Characteristics of Strip Footing on Sand”.. pp. 93- 109. Vol.. No. H. Master of Engineering Thesis. Vol. K. Siddiquee. and Miura. and Fukushima. Sapporo.. J. Vol. 1999.. Balkema. Vol. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics. M. “Model Tests and FEM Simulation of Some Factors Affecting the Bearing Capacity of Footing on Sand”. Morimoto.. 30. 113-128. Molenkamp. “Numerical Simulation of Bearing Capacity Charac- teristics of Strip Footing on Sand”... 2. D. Soils and Foundations.. Tokyo. Tatsuoka. No. Japan.. April 1988. 2000. M. University of Tokyo. “Strength Anisotropy and Shear Band Direction in Plane Strain Tests of Sand”. 1988. 6 543 . 93-109.A. 1986. Tani. Takemura.. Earth Reinforcement Prac- tice. Editors. and Morimoto. Suemasa. 788-802. F.. 24.. S. Vol. No. F. KOTAKE et al.A.. Innsbruck. pp. Vol. Tatsuoka. and Sakai. Vol. pp. USA. 4. 2. K. and Kimura. VOL.. 4.. Soils and Foundations. Proceedings of a congress held in Boulder.. 53-76. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. Pre-Failure Deformation of Geomaterials. 1991. F. Tani.A. Yoshida. Vol. 39. NO... F. M. Tanaka.. S.. Shibuya. 39. and Morimoto. Soils and Foundations.. Nakamura. Tani. and Siddiquee.. T. “Behaviour of Lubrication Layers of Platens in Element Tests”.. Tanaka. Mitachi. T. and Harris. C. September 1994. Tani. F.A. 1. D. Balkema. M. 1984. F. 1213-1218. T. Soils and Foundations. Japan. “Strength and GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001.. Kyushu University..S. K. “Bearing Capacity and Deformation of Sand Reinforced With Geogrids”. 27. M. Austria. F. Tanaka. 695-700. pp. Sakamoto. Tatsuoka. Huang. M. and Morimoto. Fukuoka. T. Vol. June 1991. O. Vol. 35-56. T. “Progressive Failure and Particle Size Effect in Bearing Capacity of a Foot- ing on Sand”. (in Japa- nese) Tatsuoka. Soils and Foundations. Geotechnical Engineering Congress 1991. Okahara. T. F. pp. Campbell.. pp. Tatsuoka. S. Soils and Foundations. Japan. K. pp. T.

M. “Shear Banding in Sand in Plane Strain Compression”. 1943. F. New York. 65-84. 6 .. and Too. and Tatsuoka. and Park. B = footing width (m) Cu = coefficient of uniformity (dimensionless) CR = cover ratio of reinforcement (%) D = principal plastic strain ratio.M.. 80-100.F. and Yashima. 1999. and Abe. September 1997. 8. S. 510 p. and Tatsuoka. O. J. “Mod- elling Stress-Strain Relations of Sand”. Yoshida. Umetsu. F. pp.. 2000. No. F. Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Localization and Bifurcation Theory for Soils and Rocks. Inc..S. Yasin. 275-290. Oka. 2. September 1997. S.. pp. A. Taylor.M. M. 1994. Tatsuoka.C. John Wiley & Sons. Yoshida. 1993.J. 237-240.. K. No. 1971. “Reduced Integration Technique in General Analysis of Plates and Shells”.A. 77-98. Siddiquee.S. NOTATIONS Basic SI units are given in parentheses.. Tatsuoka. “Plane Strain Strength and Deformation of Sands Affected by Batch Variations in Two Different Types of Apparatus”. Y. Zienkiewicz. pp. Terzaghi. Vol. 21. “Theoretical Soil Mechanics”.. Vol.. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load Deformation Characteristics of Sand in Plane Strain Compression at Extremely Low Pressure”..M. Soils and Foundations. 60-81.. T... No. R. Localization and Bifurca- tion Theory for Soils and Rocks.. T. equal to −d ε 3p /d ε 1p Dr = relative density (%) D50 = mean particle diameter (m) 544 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001.. pp. M. Adachi. Hamburg. C. Park. KOTAKE et al. Siddiquee..S. Yasin. New York. K. Germany. C. No. “Stress History-Dependent Deformation Charac- teristics of Dense Sand in Plane Strain”. Editors.. Sakamoto. International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering.. pp. Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Authur.. 3. Soils and Foundations. Vol. Vol. NO. T. No. 165- 179.. F. and Dunstan. Balkema. Kamegai. 1997.C. 26. Geotechnical Testing Journal.L. 1. J. 2.R. Vol. F. Gifu. pp. T. Balkema. Japan. 40..J. 1. VOL.A.. pp. F. “Deformation Property of Shear Band in Sand Sub- jected to Plane Strain Compression and its Relation to Particle Characteristics”. Tatsuoka.... Vol. Soils and Foundations. 1. 33. F. 2. USA.

KOTAKE et al. K′ = cohesion intercepts in yield function and potential function. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load DR = depth of reinforced zone (m) e = void ratio (dimensionless) eo = initial void ratio (dimensionless) Fb = area of single shear band in each finite element (m2) Fe = area of finite element (m2) Gs = specific gravity of soil (dimensionless) g(θ) = Lode angle function (dimensionless) h = depth of Gauss point of each plane element in present FEM analysis (m) I1 = first stress invariant (dimensionless) J2 = second stress invariant (dimensionless) K. VOL. NO. 8. respectively (Pa) K0 = coefficient of earth pressure at rest (dimensionless) L = length of reinforcement layers (m) N = normalized footing load (= N = 2q/(γd B) (dimensionless) Nγ = bearing capacity factor for gravity (dimensionless) n = number of reinforcement layer (dimensionless) pa = reference pressure (= 98 kPa) q = footing pressure (Pa) R = principal stress ratio (= σ1 / σ3 ) (dimensionless) R(δ) = anisotropy function (dimensionless) Rpeak = peak principal stress ratio = (σ1 / σ3)peak (dimensionless) Rres = value of R at the residual state (dimensionless) S = area ratio (= Fb/Fe ) (dimensionless) Sf = settlement at peak footing load (m) w = shear band width (m) d ε 1p = major plastic principal strain increments (positive in compression) (dimensionless) d ε 3p = minor plastic principal strain increments (positive in compression) (dimensionless) d ε ij = total strain increment (dimensionless) GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. 6 545 .

KOTAKE et al. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load d ε ije = elastic strain increment (dimensionless) d ε ijp = plastic strain component (dimensionless) α' = coefficient of plastic potential function for I1 in plastic potential function (dimensionless) δ = angle of direction of σ1 relative to the horizontal bedding plane (°) εf = shear strain when R = Rpeak = (σ1 / σ3)peak (dimensionless) εr = strain softening parameter (dimensionless) ε1 = major principal strain (dimensionless) ε3 = minor principal strain (dimensionless) γ = total shear strain (= ε1 − ε3) γd = dry unit weight of soil (N/m3) γmax = maximum shear strain (dimensionless) η = deviatoric stress at θ = 30 degrees on the π plane (dimensionless) θ = angle in Lode angle function (°) Φ = yield function (Pa) φmob = mobilized angle of internal friction (°) φpeak = peak internal friction angle (°) φres = residual angle of friction (°) (σh)o = initial horizontal stress (Pa) (σv)o = initial vertical stress (Pa) (σ3)o = initial minor principal stress (Pa) σ1 = major principal stress (Pa) σ2 = intermediate principal stress (Pa) σ3 = minor principal stress (Pa) Ψ = plastic potential function (Pa) ψ = mobilized angle of dilatancy (°) 546 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. VOL. 8. 6 . NO.

15 p a ) (A5b) GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. The values of these parameters should be determined so as to as accurately as possible fit a given stress- strain relation for a wide strain range from very small strains to those at the peak stress state. For the parameters C2(0). and β are introduced to give as much flexibility as possible to the GHE. “x = 0” and “x = ∞”. cos  ------------. and A and C = model parameters given as: 2C 1 G max    A(0) + A(∞) A(0) – (∞) π A = ----------------------. a modification was intro- duced to have zero tangent modulus at a given peak stress state (γf . and γref = reference shear strain. VOL.0001% to 1 to 10%. which equals [(σ1 .+ 1   x where: x = normalized shear strain. given as: γ f1 = 3.= ------------------------------. e. and Gmax = initial elastic shear modulus (described in Appendix B).165 log ( σ 3 ⁄ p a ) for ( σ 3 > 0.05 + 4. C2(∞). C2(0). NO. A(∞). KOTAKE et al.  (A3) 2 2  β    --.. which is equal to ε1 − ε3 .g. do not have zero tangent modulus at the peak stress state at a finite strain.  (A2) σ3 2 2  α    --. A(0). The hyperbolic relationships.+ 1   x C2 ( 0 ) + C2 ( ∞ ) C2 ( 0 ) – C2 ( ∞ )   π  C = ------------------------------------. A(0). The shear strain at the peak is given as: γ f ( % ) = γ f1 ( σ 3 ) f γ ( e ) g γ ( δ ) (A4) where γf1 = γf when e = 0.+ ------------------------------ A γ max C ( R max – 1 ) where: R = σ1 / σ3 and Rmax = (σ1 / σ3)max . τmax = peak shear strength.75 for ( σ 3 ≤ 0. as explained in Tatsuoka et al. 1993) is given as: 1 R = 1 + -----------------------------------------------------. which is obtained from Equation 9a. including Equation A1.+ --------------------------. (1993). and A(∞). Rpeak ) and smoothly be connected to the post-peak stress-strain equation (Equation 11).15 p a ) (A5a) γ f1 = 5. The parame- ters. compared with the original Kondner’s hyperbolic equation with constant values of A and C. γmax = shear strain.7 and δ = 90°. cos  -----------. from 0. (A1) 1 1 ---------------. 6 547 . Therefore. 8. which equals γmax / γref . α. “0” and “∞” mean the initial and peak stress states. which equals τmax /Gmax .σ3)max / 2]. C2(∞). • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load APPENDIX A THE GENERALIZED HYPERBOLIC EQUATION The generalised hyperbolic equation (GHE) (Tatsuoka et al.+ -----------------------------------.

668 ( δ ⁄ 90 ) (A6b) where δ (in degrees) is the angle of the direction of σ1 relative to the horizontal bed- ding plane. and 200 mm (Tatsuoka et al. The simulated relationship for H = 105 mm is well comparable with the experimental one from a PSC test on a specimens with a height of 10. Four average stress and average strain relationships of Toyura sand in PSC simulated by the generalised hyperbolic equation (GHE). as observed in actual PSC tests. 50.7 ) (A6a) 2 g γ ( δ ) = 1. 8. Figure A1. 1993). The post-peak modelling is explained with reference to Equation 11.336 ( δ ⁄ 90 ) + 0. KOTAKE et al. 105.. VOL. 1993). It may be seen that the post-peak relationship largely depends on the specimen height. NO.0 + 3.5 cm. compared with experimental data (Tatsuoka et al. 6 .668 – 1. These are typical of such simulations. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load The void ratio function fγ (e) and the anisotropy function gγ (δ) are given as: f γ ( e ) = 1. This feature is one of the essential parts of the sand model used in the present study.42 ( e – 0. Figure A1 shows four average stress and average strain relationships simulated by the GHE for isotropically consolidated Toyoura sand specimens having heights H of 20. 548 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001.

The empirical equation.3 was used. and fe(e) is given as. dσi . d ε ie . and the major principal stress increment. the elastic Poisson’s ratios and shear moduli are also functions of the current stress state.4 for Toyoura sand. An elastic Poisson’s ratio equal to 0. 8. which appear in Equation 11. Tatsuoka et al. which equals (σ1 + σ2 + σ3)/3. 2 ( 2. in a certain direction i is an essentially unique function of the instantaneous normal stress σi acting in the direction i. where plastic strains are dominant over elastic strains. (1978). the elastic shear modulus Ge (= Gmax) was obtained using the fol- lowing empirical relationship: e m G = Go fe ( e ) ( p ) (B2) where: e = void ratio. To for- mulate Equation B1. KOTAKE et al. the differences in the results of numerical analyses using the shear moduli based on p and σm were found to be not noticeable. Equation B2. GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001. VOL. and D ijkl = symmetric elastic stiffness matrix. (B3) 1+e The exponent m equals 0.17 – e ) f e ( e ) = -------------------------. In the present study. are given by the genera- lised Hook’s law: e e d σ ij = D ijkl d ε kl (B1) e where: dεij = stress increment. • Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load APPENDIX B ELASTIC DEFORMATION PROPERTIES OF TOYOURA SAND The elastic strain increments. Hoque and Tatsuoka 1998) have shown that the elastic Young’s modulus Eie defined for the major principal elastic strain increment. The shear modulus e = ( d σ – d σ ) ⁄ 2 ( d ε e – d ε e ) is then a function of the average stress σ = (σ + G 13 1 3 1 3 m 1 σ3)/2. p = current mean principal stress. More recent studies (Tatsuoka and Kohata 1995. not of p. 6 549 . According to the above. was originally obtained from the results of a series of resonant-column tests on Toyoura sand reported by Iwasaki et al. 1997. NO.